- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
The body running the new UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) caused by climate change has recommended that it should focus initially on helping governments rather than local communities deal with the aftermath of climate-driven disasters like floods and droughts.
A proposal by the FRLD’s secretariat, which will be debated at the fund’s board meeting in Barbados next week, says that its 2025-2026 start-up phase should prioritise government support and only later give small grants to communities – something activists have called for – and pay for insurance.
The secretariat aims to launch the fund’s start-up phase by the fourth quarter of 2025, with the first allocations of money for countries likely to be handed out in 2026, just over three years since the fund was agreed at COP27 in Egypt after years of resistance from rich polluting nations.
The FRLD secretariat, led by Senegalese-American banker Ibrahima Cheikh Diong, says its early activities should be “programmatic approaches for long-term needs”, “readiness support for country-led approaches” and “rapid disbursement via direct budget support”. These are all ways to help governments tackle loss and damage by preparing and bolstering their national systems.
Finance for renewable energy in sub-Saharan Africa is defying the odds
Harjeet Singh, founding director of the India-based Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, welcomed the secretariat’s three priority areas, adding that they align with developing countries’ demands.
But he criticised the deferral of “critical” small grants for local people. “Delaying the operationalisation of small grants, as advocated by civil society, sidelines frontline communities who are already bearing the brunt of climate impacts. Their inclusion cannot be postponed,” he told Climate Home.
“The board must recognise that advancing climate justice requires frontline communities not only to be supported,” he added, “but meaningfully empowered as key actors in both immediate and long-term responses to loss and damage.”
Start with governments
Programmatic approaches are broader, longer-term partnerships with a government that address complex, systemic issues rather than project-based funding which is usually short-term and deals with a single situation.
Readiness support means improving governments’ abilities to respond to climate impacts. The FRLD’s proposal gives examples like conducting risk assessments, setting up early warning systems for extreme weather, making schools and hospitals more resilient to climate change, and educating people on slow-developing climate threats like sea level rise.
Fossil fuel nations to see value of their economies shrink under new UN-agreed measure
Direct budget support is sending money to governments after a climate disaster to fund their response, which they can spend how they choose. The FRLD says the money could be used for temporary housing for displaced people, cash-for-work schemes and reconnecting power supplies, water and sanitation.
The secretariat proposes that small grants for community-led initiatives may be considered towards the end of the two-year start-up period, when the capacity of the secretariat – whose executive director was only appointed in September – has expanded.
The same would apply to risk-sharing and insurance mechanisms, where the fund subsidises insurance against climate disasters, and performance-based payment initiatives where funds are handed out when milestones in minimising loss and damage are achieved.
The fund’s board has decided that decisions made about the start-up phase will not necessarily set precedents for how the fund works permanently. But Lien Vandamme, a campaigner with the Center for International Environmental Law, told Climate Home that “choices made during this phase will demonstrate where the Board’s priorities lie”.
How much for the most vulnerable countries?
Governments have already agreed that small island developing states (SIDS) and the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) should get a minimum share of the fund’s resources, with donor pledges currently standing at less than $800 million.
The secretariat proposes two options to ensure this. One is a floor for SIDS and LDCs together of somewhere between a quarter and a half of the money. The other is two separate floors – one for SIDS and one for LDCs.
After the start-up period, the fund proposes several options to ensure that one country or group of countries don’t take too much of the money.
One is a percentage cap per country or region, another is a percentage threshold above which the secretariat will monitor allocations, and the third has no percentages but agrees that the secretariat will try to ensure funding is allocated across regions in a balanced manner.
After the start-up phase, there could also be caps on the three different streams of funding – programmatic approaches, rapid disbursement and readiness support.
The secretariat proposes that the start-up phase will prioritise grants, with loans on better-than-market terms coming in later, and that 155 entities accredited to other UN funds like the Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Fund will automatically be accredited to the FRLD.
Need billions, got millions
Despite pledging around $766 million to the fund, governments have so far only signed contribution agreements for $469 million and actually paid in $261 million. The United Arab Emirates has not turned its $100-million commitment – which made headlines at COP28 in Dubai – into a contribution agreement or made a bank transfer.
The US did pay its $17.5-million pledge before Donald Trump took office. Since Trump came to power, vowing to walk away from the UN climate process, the US has surrendered its seat on the FRLD board, which will now go to another developed country.
The Loss and Damage Collaboration, a network of NGOs working on the issue, has estimated that developing countries’ loss and damage needs add up to around $400 billion a year. One climate disaster alone – the 2022 floods in Pakistan – inflicted $30 billion in damage and economic losses, with an additional $16 billion needed to rebuild, according to an international assessment.
Compared with these numbers, the initial amounts wealthy governments have offered to the FRLD fall far short of the rising costs of responding to and repairing the negative impacts of climate change on economies and people.
The post Loss and damage fund proposes helping governments first, local communities later appeared first on Climate Home News.
Loss and damage fund proposes helping governments first, local communities later
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.